South Dakota v. Opperman
- Decided
- July 6, 1976
- Docket
- 75-76
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,445 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a warrantless “caretaking search of a lawfully impounded automobile” does not violate the Fourth Amendment — United States v. Donald P. Rohrig (1996)
- holding that an inventory search of an automobile prior to its im-poundment, pursuant to standard police procedures, is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment — United States v. Steven G. Campbell (2007)
- holding that an inventory search of an automobile prior to its impoundment, pursuant to standard police procedures, is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment — United States v. Steven G. Campbell (2007)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court.
We review the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Dakota, holding that local police violated the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, as applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, when they conducted a routine inventory search of an automobile lawfully impounded by police for violations of municipal parking ordinances.
(1) Local ordinances prohibit parking in certain areas of downtown Vermillion, S. D., between the hours of 2 a. m. and 6 a. m. During the early morning hours of December 10, 1973, a Vermillion police officer observed respondent’s unoccupied vehicle illegally parked in the restricted zone. At approximately 3 a. m., the officer issued an overtime parking ticket and placed it on the car’s windshield. The citation warned:
Cite this
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.